Call it what you want -- anti-gay or religious rights -- but if Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs a controversial bill, you might not be calling Arizona the home of the 2015 Super Bowl.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, S.B. 1062, is the current controversy du jour out of Arizona, and the National Football League is with the opposition.

“Our policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or any other improper standard,” NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told USA Today. “We are following the issue in Arizona and will continue to do so should the bill be signed into law, but will decline further comment at this time.”

Sign Up for the Politics Today newsletter!
The Arizona Super Bowl Host committee released a statement saying it disagreed with the bill and its impact on Arizona’s economy.

“On that matter we have heard loud and clear from our various stakeholders that adoption of this legislation would not only run contrary to that goal but deal a significant blow to the state's economic growth potential,” a committee spokesperson said. “We do not support this legislation.”

Arizona is currently slated to host the 2015 Super Bowl at Glendale’s University of Phoenix Stadium.

Opponents of the bill contend that it will allow Arizona businesses to refuse service to homosexual customers.

But, as with most bills in Congress, the attack ads have little to do with the actual legislation.

Proponents of the bill claim that no, businesses will not have carte blanche to refuse service to anyone they disagree with based on religious grounds.

Specifically, proponents claim that there is nothing in Arizona’s current laws that prevent businesses from discriminating against anyone — and yet, strangely enough, discrimination isn’t happening.

Apparently, businesses in Arizona have wanted to discriminate but have just been waiting for a bill to allow them to do so — which this bill does not. Also, what business would quietly wait to discriminate?

“Business owners do not want to deny service to gays,” the Christian Post wrote. “This is not because they fear government sanction. Rather, it is because: 1) Their religious, ethical or moral beliefs tell them it is wrong to deny service; and/or, 2) the profit motive — turning away customers is no way to run a business.”

Well, people already do complain about the entertainment industry being too political including the Academy Awards, the Grammys. Now the NFL is getting into it.

What do you care what a private business does, as long as it is legal, regardless of the motivation. That's your whole philosophy on everything--let people/businesses alone to act as they wish. If the NFL decides it doesn't want to be associated with AZ, why should you care?

Well, people already do complain about the entertainment industry being too political including the Academy Awards, the Grammys. Now the NFL is getting into it.

I don't watch the Academy Awards or the Grammys. I ignore Bob Costas when he blathers on during half time. If the entertainment becomes too political, people will stop consuming it. It's just that simple. That's how you define "too political" in entertainment. You and I, and the guy down the street, may have different opinions about what is and is not too political. And that's fine. But it becomes too political when it dies off because not enough people are entertained enough to keep it viable.

__________________

"As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn't leave my bitterness and hatred behind I'd still be in prison."

The NFL is all about corporate welfare because it fleeces taxpayers routinely by receiving massive public giveaways to build new stadiums, workout facilities etc. etc. Even from so-called budget slashing conservative governors. Meanwhile, Goodell makes $30 million a year.

I don't watch the Academy Awards or the Grammys. I ignore Bob Costas when he blathers on during half time. If the entertainment becomes too political, people will stop consuming it. It's just that simple. That's how you define "too political" in entertainment. You and I, and the guy down the street, may have different opinions about what is and is not too political. And that's fine. But it becomes too political when it dies off because not enough people are entertained enough to keep it viable.

That wasn't my argument. You can bring it up as another point but it's really a strawman to my point. So I don't understand why you keep pursuing it.

However, vsee my last post before this. I was typing it while you were responding. The NFL is connected to govt power, being a corporatist game--not a free market one.

This thread shows how phony BEP's act really is. She's against the Civil Rights Act and ok with businesses being able to refuse service to black customers--because that should be their right to make such decisions.

But for some reason, she's upset the NFL might decide it doesn't want to be associated with AZ. This is really about her personal feelings rather than any political and economic philosophy she claims to believe in based on principle.

The NFL plays their games in publicly funded stadiums, broadcast images over public airwaves, and then the owners get to keep all the money they receive as a result. Then they have the nerve to say regarding their images that “without the NFL’s consent” use is prohibited. So entertainment created in publicly funded stadiums is now private property.

The NFL takes advantage of the public. They provide the circus to the "bread and circus" from govt today.

That wasn't my argument. You can bring it up as another point but it's really a strawman to my point. So I don't understand why you keep pursuing it.

Nope. No strawman involved. Your opinion is that the NFL is too political. I may or may not disagree with you. It is an entertainment cartel. Ultimately that will be decided by the consumers as a group.

Quote:

However, see my last post before this. I was typing it while you were responding. The NFL is connected to govt power, being a corporatist game--not a free market one.

The connections are irrelevant in this context.

__________________

"As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn't leave my bitterness and hatred behind I'd still be in prison."

Nope. No strawman involved. Your opinion is that the NFL is too political. I may or may not disagree with you. It is an entertainment cartel. Ultimately that will be decided by the consumers as a group.

Nope this is a strawman because I asked originally:

Quote:

Why the hell, is the NFL getting so involved in politics these days?

If it is an entertainment cartel, then it's not free-market and there is little choice for the consumer to go elsewhere with their money. They would have to boycott.